<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
Sounds about right. Also, If we got to expose/fetch notecards over the web, both alternatives could merge. ;)<BR><BR>
(And yes, we really only need one notecard per license type)<BR>
<BR>Best regards,<BR>Stefan Andersson<BR>Tribal Media AB<BR><BR><BR><BR> <BR>> From: adam@deepthink.com.au<BR>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 23:33:48 -0400<BR>> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles<BR>> <BR>> I suggest using a URI here for the licenses, with major license links hosted at sites owned by major organisations unlikely to go down (CC, FSF, etc).<BR>> <BR>> For plain SL-viewers, perhaps we could show the licenses as the 'description' of the inventory item or something? (maybe a '/license <item>' command inworld with the inventory item name returns license information?)<BR>> <BR>> Adam<BR>> <BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From: opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de [mailto:opensim-dev-<BR>> > bounces@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Michael Cortez<BR>> > Sent: Monday, 30 March 2009 5:32 PM<BR>> > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Legal Issues was RFC Profiles<BR>> > <BR>> > >> I'm not sure I would support having Creative Commons be the default<BR>> > though...<BR>> > >> while it is an excellent option for some work and I have used it<BR>> > for<BR>> > some content<BR>> > >> I have developed, it does reduce the creator's rights that are<BR>> > normally assumed<BR>> > >> by the Berne convention or US copyright laws.<BR>> > <BR>> > This is true.<BR>> > <BR>> > With the four component options available for CC, many scenarios are<BR>> > covered:<BR>> > <BR>> > http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/<BR>> > <BR>> > But not all.<BR>> > <BR>> > All of the CC options assume you allow redistribution, but aside from<BR>> > that in most cases "Copy-No Mod" would be equivalent to something like<BR>> > "Attribution No Derivatives" and "Copy-Mod" would essentially be<BR>> > "Attribution Share-Alike" or "Attribution Non-Commercial."<BR>> > <BR>> > What's missing is a "No Distribution" clause. If the organizers had<BR>> > the<BR>> > foresight to be complete, rather then altruistic, the addition of a<BR>> > non-redistribution clause IMHO would have made for the ultimate<BR>> > mix/match license.<BR>> > <BR>> > An "All rights reserved, you are licensed to use this for personal use"<BR>> > type clause for "No Perms" would be good.<BR>> > <BR>> > Lots of ideas, and there will be lots of complexity -- and of course we<BR>> > don't want to start handing out legal advice -- but as others have<BR>> > mentioned, if we start with some way of adding asset meta data -- we<BR>> > can<BR>> > then grow from there.<BR>> > <BR>> > Now of course, for specific grids like say <cough>OSGrid</cough> --<BR>> > where I suspect the admin's aren't really in this to be IP rights<BR>> > cops, and probably don't want people coming after them with lawyers<BR>> > because some bug exposed an exploitable asset copy mechanism, or<BR>> > because someone connected a hacked region to the grid to suck assets<BR>> > out<BR>> > -- perhaps having the default licensing be something like CC -- which<BR>> > always guarantees redistribution isn't such a bad thing?<BR>> > <BR>> > --<BR>> > Michael Cortez<BR>> > _______________________________________________<BR>> > Opensim-dev mailing list<BR>> > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Opensim-dev mailing list<BR>> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<BR></body>
</html>